Not much of a sea-based deterrent, says Pravin Sawhney; Chakra is the filler of strategic space says Vijay Shankar
Not much of a sea-based deterrent
Just when the Russian nuclear-powered Akula-II submarine joins the Indian Navy as INS Chakra on a 10-year lease at a cost of over $one billion, the moot question is: does it contribute to India's sea-based nuclear deterrence?
To put matters in perspective, India in 1988 had procured the Soviet Charlie I class nuclear attack submarine, renamed INS Chakra on a three-year lease. The vessel came without strategic weapons, with the sole purpose of familiarising naval personnel on training and maintenance of nuclear-powered submarines. The rules of engagement spelt out that INS Chakra would not be used in war. The hidden part of the deal was that Soviets would help India in its indigenous Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), both materially and intellectually. While the promised assistance to the ATV programme which culminated in the launch of 80MW nuclear reactor S-2 vessel (to be called INS Arihant on commissioning) by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 26 July 2009 came in fits and starts, the technology of the 6,000 tonne vessel is between first and second generation vintage. By comparison, the U.S. has ninth generation nuclear-powered subs which do not require refuelling throughout their lifetime.
Follow-on vessels
The Russian Akula sub, given the same name, INS Chakra comes with similar purpose and rules of engagement. Like the earlier deal, the undisclosed understanding this time is that it is part of the Gorshkov package (INS Vikramaditya) and includes Russian help in the follow-on indigenous nuclear-powered vessels. While S-2 vessel began sea-trials in January (could last 12 to 18 months), India has planned follow-on S-3 and S-4 vessels based on the S-2 design. As all three vessels have similar hull and nuclear power plant, capability enhancements will be meagre. It is only when the S-5 vessel with a new design and a powerful nuclear reactor is launched, which could be two-decades away, can India hope to have a semblance of sea-based deterrence against China. The S-2 and the coming S-3 and S-4 vessels will lack adequate capabilities in three key areas of stealth, reactor design and missile range to become a deterrent ballistic missile armed nuclear-powered submarine (SSBN) against China, which with its Jin class subs is at least four decades ahead. India's S-2 vessel armed with 700km K-15 missile will have difficulty in even deterring Pakistan as, given its limitations, it would be required to be positioned closer to hostile shore.
Against this backdrop, a retired chief of naval staff had told me that the coming of Akula four years late, when the S-2 vessel is already undergoing sea-trials, serves little purpose. While still in office, he had written to the government to review the leasing of Akula programme. According to him, there is a case to dispense with the S-3 and S-4 vessels which will consume enormous time and finances. India, after all, is still on the technology understanding curve and not ready for production. Therefore it should leap-frog to work on S-5 vessels which would entail imagination and initiative. Given improved relations with the U.S. and France, why cannot India seek advanced reactor technology from them? Developing long range ballistic missile would have to be an indigenous effort as it comes under global restrictive regimes. Why cannot ISRO with capabilities to propel rockets up to 10,000km help DRDO make 8,000km ballistic missiles? These hard questions need to be examined to produce credible sea-based deterrence.
(The writer is editor, FORCE newsmagazine. Email: pravin@forceindia.net)
**********
Chakra, the filler of strategic space
A strategic posture of a nation is a declaration, more by deed than articulation, of its orientation, will and intent. It purports to mould and shape a future that would benefit its larger objectives. The process is fraught with the hazards of conflicting interests and therefore it demands the weight of the nation's comprehensive power both soft and hard.
In an era when the face of soft power is that of an Assange and its voice, that of Gandhi, Gibran, Che and Osama; a critical instrument to uphold posture is the State's military power and the talent to distinguish between the maintenance of armed forces and their use.
The operational canvas is a transient that abhors futuristic force planning. So it was, year-after-every-five year the planner was condemned to an exercise that perceived threats and building force structures to cope.
‘Intimidation and accretion'
It was, therefore, the ‘instantaneous intimidation' that drove plans and consequently resulted in ‘a tail chasing' accretion of forces. Unfortunately to some, this inspiration continues to be the pretender that fills strategic space. The case of our strategic maritime posture as a function of the declared ‘Look East' policy is a study in point. Here the need for a theory to make transparent the complexity of the problem and invite the necessary intellectual rigour to not just ‘chart a course' but also to analyse and cater for the hurdles that may beset policy is the first imperative.
As Julian Corbett so eloquently put it, theory may not be a substitute for judgment and experience, but is a means to fertilize both.
Significantly, the recent acquisition on a 10-year lease of the ‘Chakra' (Russian Akula II class nuclear attack submarine) is an extremely perspicacious departure from the past for it is a concrete step towards the translation of the theory and realisation of the larger strategic maritime posture that serves policy.
Long gestation
Admittedly, the gestation period has been long; it is recognised the process has been challenged by a fragmented approach (the Chakra in its first avatar came to us in1988) and plagued by the economics and the geopolitics of the times. But these are challenges that any strategic project must expect to face and defy.
The nuclear attack submarine (SSN) being completely independent of air for propulsion frees it from the need to surface frequently, the enormous power generated permits a bigger hull to operate at high speeds with large payloads for durations that is limited by human fatigue and replenishment of consumables only (reactors require refuelling at intervals of 25 years). In real terms, it is critical to understand what the Chakra represents. Working the submarine to our operational challenges and demands is just the tip of the iceberg, training and building a bank of specialised personnel; creating the necessary infrastructure to maintain nuclear submarines; unique logistic management practices; development of doctrines and procedures; generating design feature for the indigenous programme and, most importantly, building an ethos of efficient and safe nuclear submarine stewardship and exertions, these are the 8/9th submerged part of the iceberg. Strategically SSNs in numbers provide a vital element of a riposte to any “sea control strategy” that an adversary may contemplate or a “denial strategy” that we may plan.
State of art
In terms of the platform, the Akula II represents the state of art in SSN design, the programme having been launched in the mid 1990s. The nearest in terms of design vintage is the British ‘Astute' class also of the mid 1990s,but in terms of capabilities it is smaller and less accomplished; while the American Los Angeles class predates the Chakra by a decade. Also, the design philosophy harmonises with the orientation of our strategic nuclear submarine project.
As far as the economics of the matter is concerned, $920 million for a 10-year lease with certain support features attached must be viewed in perspective of what the SSN represents and the fact that a new SSN of similar capability with a 30-year life would have a price tag of about $3billion and a through life cost of (thumb rule) $9 billion would suggest that the deal is a sound one.
As any nation that has committed to operating maritime nuclear force will fully appreciate that kudos are due to our planners who visualised a theory, saw a form and translated it to a force plan and now have given substance to each step of the way.
(Vice Admiral (Retd.) Vijay Shankar PVSM, AVSM is the former Commander-in-Chief of the Andaman & Nicobar Command, Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Forces Command and Flag Officer Commanding Western Fleet. Email: snigir@gmail.com)





What alternate plan of action does the learned admiral propose to follow ? Does he think that US will lend India her nuke sub for us to copy ? There is no quick fix solution at hand...India will have to climb the ladder one step at a time like everybody has...Russia has helped us perfect indigenous reactor technology thereby reduce time taken for R&D...Charka is a leg up the ladder; a baby step in the long journey to self reliance in self defense.
Although both articles are extremely informative, I agree with Vijay and disagree with Pravin. The Shchuka-B submarine is exactly what we need to leapfrog from generation 1-2 vessels to generation 7-9. And we are making the transnational submarines for a good reason- We need them. Both for tactical and strategic deterrence and for gaining experience in making such machines. And of course, submarines are far more relevant in modern warfare than aircraft carriers- Which are just huge chunks of metal on the open sea with huge tactical and psychological value- Making them an easy and vulnerable target for modern terrain hugging, hypersonic and pinpoint accurate missiles.
While the Force editor could be correct in that there may be better alternatives, Chakra appears to be the best amongst realistic choices. Admiral Shankar makes a valid point regarding Chakra being a part of a well though out strategy and something we can be proud of
I am not able, for the life of me, follow the arguments of FORCE news magazine editor Mr. Pravin. Let me attempt to clarify. 1 - India can't expect strategic missiles/weapons with the sub. These are subject to international treaties. 2 - No western country will or has offered to give reactor tech for the subs. 3- Forget reactor for sub technology, no country has been given a lease of a nuke sub except India. Don't expect the latest gen sub. 4 - The goal of acquiring the sub isn't for nuclear deterrence right now. Nuclear deterrence isn't acquired, it has to be developed. This sub is a step forward. 5 - Akula 2 subs are considered one of the most silent sub and comparable to latest Los Angles class sub 6 - You can't develop a ninth generation sub if you haven't developed or had experienced 1st gen sub. 7- A rocket isn't same as a missile. A missile has to be light, mobile, fast, quite, with a long shelf life and land where you want it - not the same expectations from a rocket.
India is racing against China, while China is racing against the US. Therefore there is no point whining about the fact that China is four decades ahead of India, and the Indian yet to be launched sub is based on first or at best the second generation technology, against nineth generation available with the US. India, just like its politicians that rule the country, is a third rate nation where the brains have left India many decades ago, and are still leaving at the first opportunity!
Russain are superior to USA as compare to the SSN & SSBN are concerned and the russian have provided a technology which is 2 step behind them, that mean we are a step behind the American and the Chinese a step behind us.The IN is not fool enough to invest in a 2 decade old project, as taking future plan in mind.So, guys be cool and have faith & trust in our Navy.
You fail to realise, we seriously lack technological know how and indigenous product supply chain for nuclear submarines. Have you paid attention how bad our successive governments are investing in basic science research/defense research? Let alone the delays? I believe any technology know how and guidance should be welcomed. Future wars will be prevented by credible deterrence and protecting trade routes.
The Russian Akula (INS Chakra) the subs is very powerful weapon, I am not sure what types missiles they are allowed to be use in this sub vehicle that is on lease. The first Jet fighter aircraft India is developing Tejas, it has taken a long time for this fighter to get off the ground but they are learning fast. Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV is India's first Nuclear sub ! One thing the Indians are very good at is upgrading, a nuclear attack Submarine has to be able to lunch a attack1000km from the shores off the enemy. The ATV sub will be better, the Indians have get lot off common they will get there own ballistic missiles and cruse with triple warheads like the Agni V, in the ATV.
II India is allowed use their own Missiles system with a longer range in the (Akula (INS Chakra) but if they are not then I don't see the point see the point paying all that money for this Sub. I am sure they are allowed to put there own missile system into INS Chakra. I hope those types of weapons are never used, if they are then it could be the end off the world.
Thanking the writer for giving a clear picture of this Submarine...when published in TOI i read the comments of many people[more patriotic] reaching the sky..as if they are going to defeat PAK.
2004 file picture taken in Brest Harbour, western France, shows the Vepr Russian nuclear submarine of the Project 971 Shchuka-B type, or Akula-class by NATO classification, the same type as the Nerpa Russian nuclear submarine. Indian navy personnel took command of the nuclear-powered submarine, Russian-built Chakra II, former Nerpa of Russia’s navy, after collecting the submarine near the Russian port of Vladivostok on Tuesday.
A strange article by the Force editor. He is making a false statement that INS Arihant is 1st/2nd Gen sub, while Americans are in 9th generation. Both the numbers are probably incorrect, especially the claim that Americans are in 9th generation. He is probably looking for Indian Govt to respond and reveal the capabilities of INS Arihant, which of course is classified,and wisely nobody will respond on that part. With respect to INS Chakra, the Admiral has already responded, it is a state of the art sub, and the Force editor is probably not happy, that it can outrun and outmanouvre Chinese subs. The Force editor conveniently forgot to mention that India has option to purchase INS Chakra after 10 years, which it will almost certainly exercise. Overall India is way short of subs, which if the editor had done a little extra research, then he would know, and all new subs are welcome.
retd vm. Mr.vijay Shankar, has adequately replied to the opinion, it is true no one is going to let you have the knowledge for free - a price has to be paid. If it is a monetary what more you can ask, and leapfrogging from one generation technology without adequate knowledge of running and the inputs is not a mature way of dealing. And dreaming the west will help you in the critical technology is daydreaming
Admiral Vijay Shankar has quite clearly brought out the importance of INS CHAKRA. In comparison the article by editor of Force magazine is hollow and shallow. CHAKRA is a mile stone for the India and the IN from all angles.
Is it worth it?. That is the point. Its like whizzing around the town in a Mercedes borrowed from your neighbour. The Navy would be better off guarding its "huge" coastline against landings by terrorists and ghost ships. The Nuke subs go hand in hand with the Poiltical and Naval Leadership. Both these are conspicous by their absence. The world knows our worth.
One billion dollars initial payment and $50 million a year for ten years and untold other amounts paid, Russian mafias would be going to the bank laughing at the Indians.
Please Email the Editor